Why are the father (the Respondent), the judges, and the fraudsters in this case so afraid of revealing the facts? Can they legally order the removal of this petition’s details from public websites and hide all the court orders already published under Canadian law? Or is this just another trick to silence the Applicant and her children and hide the truth of their fraudulent authority?
According to the court order issued on February 26, 2025, the hearing has been postponed. A full-day session to discuss four cases is now scheduled online on July 11, 2025, from 10 AM.
A Special Appointment has been set for July 11, 2025, at 10 a.m. (full day) to take place virtually.
Four Motions shall be heard at the Special Appointment as follows:
- Motion by the Applicant for ancillary relief (Motion Form dated February 20, 2025);
- Motion by the Respondent for a Contempt Order (Motion Form dated February 17, 2025);
- Motion by the Respondent for ancillary relief (Motion Form also dated February 17, 2025); and
- Motion to be brought by the Respondent got the sole relief of removing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and excluding any evidence of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.
This update will present only the materials the Respondent submitted regarding his Motion to issue a Contempt Order against the Applicant Mother, and the Motion for his ancillary relief, both motions were filed on February 17, 2025, to clarify the original intent and purpose of these cases, which have no basis in truth or justice.
**********************************************
- · 31 NOTICE OF CONTEMPT MOTION -RESPONDENT-ZAYED- FEBRUARY 17, 2025
Superior Court of Justice, Family Court
at 80 Dundas Street, London, Ontario, N6A 6A3
Form 31: Notice of Contempt Motion
TO: (name of person against whom contempt motion is made) Lubna Yousef Abdel Rahman Aldahleh
The person making this motion or the person’s lawyer must contact the clerk of the court by telephone or otherwise to choose a time and date when the court
YOU MUST COME TO COURT AT (place of hearing)
ON February 26, 2025.
could hear this motion
at 10:00 AM
and to remain until the court has dealt with the case.
A motion will be made by (moving party’s name) Zakaria A. M. Zayed
for a finding that you are in contempt of the court because you: (Briefly state details of contempt.)
1. Failure to Comply with court Orders:
· The applicant mother has failed to comply with the orders issued on March 30, 2023, May 26, 2023, July 31, 2023, November 29, 2023, and February 16, 2024, which ordered her to facilitate parenting time for the respondent father with the children.
· Despite these clear orders, the applicant mother has refused to allow the respondent father to have regular contact with the children, including blocking communication and manipulating the schedule.
· The applicant mother has not complied with the custody and education-related orders, including the orders to resume in-person schooling, and provide the children’s passports to the court.
2. Obstruction of Communication:
· The applicant mother has obstructed direct communication between the respondent father and the children, including refusing video calls, phone calls, and other forms of communication as ordered by the court.
3. Parental Alienation and Emotional Manipulation:
· The applicant mother has engaged in parental alienation, manipulating the children against their father, and preventing them from maintaining healthy family connections.
4. Failure to Allow the Children to Express Themselves Freely:
· The applicant mother has prevented the children from freely expressing their desire to communicate or spend time with their father. This includes refusing communication and ensuring that the children are afraid or reluctant to engage with the father due to the applicant's influence. Her actions have significantly impaired the children's ability to maintain a healthy relationship with both parents, which has further exacerbated their emotional distress.
5. Creating Administrative Barriers and Emotional Harm:
· The applicant mother has created administrative barriers by blocking access to the children’s school records, medical information, and other documents, making it difficult for the respondent father to fulfill his role as a responsible parent. These actions have contributed to emotional harm for the children, as they have been manipulated and alienated from their father. This interference has caused significant distress to the children and has undermined their right to maintain relationships with both parents.
6. Failure to Provide Information/access to information:
· The applicant mother has repeatedly refused to provide necessary information about the children’s health, education, and well-being, including blocking access to the children’s school records and medical information.
7. Media Exploitation and Public Manipulation:
· The applicant mother has exploited public media to make false accusations, solicit sympathy, and manipulate narratives against the respondent father, while also sharing confidential court documents without authorization.
8. Refusal to Participate in Mediation and Reconciliation:
· The applicant mother has refused to participate in mediation or reconciliation as ordered by Justice Tobin on July 31, 2023. She did not engage with the designated relationship counselor, Paula, as instructed by the court.
· Furthermore, the applicant mother responded to the mediation center with unacceptable accusations and has displayed similar behavior in negotiations both in Canada and Kuwait.
· Despite initially engaging in the process in 2024, the applicant mother suddenly refused to continue, stopped responding to calls from the OCL, Amicus, the respondent father, and his former lawyer, and deliberately created conflicts instead of working towards resolution.
· The applicant’s refusal to engage in counseling or mediation shows her lack of willingness to cooperate and put the children’s best interests first.
9. Refusal to Accept Ordered and Paid Items:
· The applicant mother has refused to accept and receive essential items ordered for the children. Despite multiple attempts to send these items, she has either discarded, donated, or falsely claimed that they are not appropriate or "Halal" for the children. This includes the failure to acknowledge receipt of the items, which were clearly needed for the children.
· The evidence against you is set out in the affidavit(s) attached to this notice. If the document(s) is/are missing, you must talk to the court office immediately.
IF YOU ARE FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF THE COURT, THE COURT MAY MAKE AN ORDER TO IMPRISON YOU, TO PAY A FINE AND TO TEMPORARILY SEIZE YOUR PROPERTY. YOU MAY ALSO BE ORDERED TO PAY COSTS.
IF YOU DO NOT COME TO COURT, A WARRANT MAY BE ISSUED FOR YOUR ARREST TO BRING YOU TO COURT.
Respondent:
Zakaria A. M. Zayed
Kuwait
February 17, 2025
Date of signature
***************************************************
· Form 14: Notice of Motion
TO THE PARTIES:
THE COURT WILL HEAR A MOTION on (date) February 26, 2025
At 10:00AM , or as soon as possible after that time at: (place of hearing)
80 Dundas Street, London, Ontario, N6A 6A3
This motion will be made by (name of person making motion) Zakaria Zayed
who will be asking the court for an order for the item(s) listed on page 2 of this notice.
X A copy of the affidavit(s) in support of this motion is/are served with this notice.
A notice of a case conference is served with this notice to change an order.
If this material is missing, you should talk to the court office immediately.
The person making this motion is also relying on the following documents in the continuing record: (List documents)
1- Respondent’s Amended Answer - Form 10, dated June 28, 2024
2- Respondent’s Case Conference Brief - Form 17A, dated October 8, 2024
3- Form 31: Notice of Contempt Motion dated February 17, 2025, and
4- Form 14A: Affidavit of Zakaria Zayed sworn February 17, 2025
5- Court files
If you want to oppose this motion or to give your own views, you should talk to your own lawyer and prepare your own
affidavit, serve it on all other parties and file it at the court not later than 4 days before the date above. Only written and
affidavit evidence will be allowed at a motion unless the court gives permission for oral testimony. You may bring your
lawyer to the motion.
IF YOU DO NOT COME TO THE MOTION, THE COURT MAY MAKE AN ORDER WITHOUT YOU AND ENFORCE IT AGAINST YOU.
February 17, 2025
Date of signature
NOTE TO PERSON MAKING THIS MOTION: You MUST file a Confirmation (Form 14C) not later than 2:00 p.m. 3 days before the date set out above.
If this is a motion to change past and future support payments under an order that has been assigned to a government agency, you must also serve this notice on that agency. If you do not, the agency can ask the court to set aside any order
that you may get in this motion and can ask for court costs against you.
State the order or orders requested on this motion.
1. An Order, pursuant to Rule 3(5) of the Family Law Rules, abridging time for serving and filing of the within Motion, if necessary;
2. An Order, pursuant to Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules, granting the Respondent Father leave to have the above motion heard prior to a case conference;
3. An Order, pursuant Rule 1(7.2) of the Family Law Rules, that the Respondent Father’s affidavit and exhibits for this motion may exceed the page limits as set in the Province-wide Notice to the Profession, if necessary;
4. An Order, pursuant to Rule 1(7.2) of the Family Law Rules, setting a special appointment date for the hearing of this motion at the earliest possible date;
5. Contempt of Court
The applicant mother, Lubna Yousef Abdel Rahman Aldahleh, is found to be in contempt of court due to her ongoing and consistent failure to comply with multiple court orders related to parenting time, communication, and information sharing with the respondent father, Zakaria A. M. Zayed. The applicant mother is hereby subject to fines or other penalties as determined by the court to ensure compliance with all court orders and to address her manipulation of the children’s access to their father.
6. Custody and Parenting Time
The respondent father, Zakaria A. M. Zayed, is granted permission to keep his children with him in
London, Ontario, from March 29 to April 14, 2025, with 24/7 access during that period.
7. Equal Parenting Time
Equal parenting time shall be granted between the applicant mother and respondent father during
the respondent father's visits to Canada.
8. Unrestricted Communication
The applicant mother shall facilitate unrestricted video and audio communication between the
respondent father and the children.
Enforceable measures: Should the applicant mother fail to comply, the respondent father shall be
granted full decision-making authority and become the primary care provider and custodian of the
children.
9. Disclosure of Contact Information
The applicant mother is ordered to provide the respondent father with the children’s mobile phone
numbers and social media account details, allowing the father to maintain direct and private
communication with the children.
10. Parental and Psychological Assessments of the Applicant Mother under section 30 of the
Children’s Law Reform Act
The applicant mother shall undergo comprehensive parental and psychological assessments, with
the respondent father permitted to submit documentary evidence to the evaluator.
11. Evaluations of the Children
The children shall undergo comprehensive psychological evaluations to identify any undue
influence, alienation, brainwashing, or control exerted by the applicant mother.
The evaluations shall extend beyond merely recording the children’s preferences and views and
shall ensure that their responses are free from external influence.
12. Holding of Passports
The children’s passports shall be held by the court until the issuance of final orders, to prevent any
unauthorized travel.
13. Shared Decision-Making
Shared decision-making responsibilities shall be granted between both parents if the applicant
mother complies with all prior orders. Should there be continued non-compliance, the court may
consider revisiting custody arrangements.
14. Confirmation of Residential Addresses
The applicant mother is ordered to confirm her residential address, as well as the children's
residential address, and is prohibited from changing either without the respondent's consent or court
approval.
15. Direct Requests for Financial Support and Items
The children are permitted to directly request and receive items, gifts, and financial support from the
respondent father, without interference/involvement from the applicant mother. An
acknowledgment or confirmation of these requests shall be provided to the respondent father.
16. Use of Children’s Photos and Documents
The applicant mother is ordered to cease using or distributing photos or any documents related to
the children or court matters without prior written consent from the respondent father.
17. Access to Children’s Records
The applicant mother is ordered to provide the respondent father with the names and contact details
of all service providers, as well as school report cards, medical reports, and any documents related
to the children’s health, education, and well-being.
The applicant mother is also ordered to grant the respondent father the necessary approvals to obtain
information regarding the children’s welfare.
18. Costs of this motion; and
19. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and proper.
*******************************************************
Respondent Father’s Form 14A: Affidavit (General)
dated February 17, 2025
My name is
(Full legal name) Zakaria A. M. Zayed
I live in
(Municipality and province) Jabriya, Kuwait
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one
complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person’s
name and state that you believe that fact to be true.
Introduction:
1. I am the respondent father in this case. The applicant mother, my three children, and I are Jordanian citizens.
My children and I have lived in Kuwait since their birth, while the applicant mother has resided in Kuwait since 2009. Kuwait is our habitual residence. However, in July 2021, the applicant mother wrongfully took our children to Canada without my knowledge, consent, or a court order.
2. Baraa and Lujain were born in Canada but have never lived there, except at birth. Mariam was born in Jordan.
The applicant mother began planning the abduction as early as 2017 or 2018.
3. The applicant mother has failed to comply with court orders issued in Kuwait, Jordan, and Canada. (Tab 1)
Court Proceedings and Jurisdiction
4. On February 16, 2024, a trial was held regarding jurisdiction, and the court determined Ontario was the appropriate jurisdiction for parenting matters. The decision was largely based on the applicant’s testimony, disregarding documented evidence. My former legal counsel failed to adequately represent me, and the children’s best interests were not prioritized. Efforts were made by OCL representative Rasim Misheal and amicus curiae Anthony Macri to ensure the children remained in Canada, despite the facts.
Applicant's Non-Compliance and Manipulation
5. The applicant mother intentionally portrays herself as a victim to justify blocking my court-ordered parenting time, denying my access to the children's information, hiding her address, and making false accusations and threats against anyone who does not fully comply with her demands. (Tabs 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18)
6. She prevents the children from maintaining connections with their father, relatives, and siblings
7. She does not allow the children to receive money, gifts, or items from their father and prevents them from making any requests or communicating with him. She hides her address, refuses to confirm receipt of ordered items, and either hides, donates, claims they are not "Halal" for Muslims, or disposes of them. (Tab 11)
8. Her responses are often impolite, irrelevant, and misleading, frequently distorting facts. (Tab 20)
9. She refuses to provide the father with essential information regarding the children's health, education, and well-being. Keep acting in weird and non-accepted ways. (Tabs 11 and 17)
Violations of Court-Ordered Parenting Time
10. According to court orders from Kuwait and Jordan, I am the sole custodian, decision-maker, and legal guardian of my children. Both courts have confirmed my full parental authority, and criminal court orders have convicted the applicant mother for actions against the children’s best interests. Despite attending proceedings and appealing these convictions, the applicant mother has failed to comply with the orders. (Tab 1)
11. Several court orders have been issued regarding communication and parenting time, all of which the applicant mother has refused to comply with:
- In both Kuwait and Jordan, she did not comply with any orders.
- March 30, 2023: Justice D. Korpan ordered three weekly video calls between me and the children (Tab 2).
- May 26, 2023: Justice Tobin amended this order, setting each call for 30 minutes (Tab 3).
- July 31, 2023: Justice Tobin ordered the applicant mother to ensure free and private communication (Tab 4).
- August 11, 2023: The applicant confirmed she was not complying with parenting orders (Tab 5).
- November 29, 2023: Justice V. Mitrow ruled that the applicant must return the children to London and resume in-person schooling. He also confirmed that the applicant was not complying with court orders (Tab 6).
- February 16, 2024: Justice Tobin reaffirmed reasonable electronic parenting time. This order was affirmed
- on October 24, 2024, by Justice Howard (Tab 7).
12. On February 16, 2024, Justice Tobin ordered that "All interim orders made in this case are now at an end.
These orders were related to jurisdictional matters, not parenting issues. However, the applicant misused and exploited this order to block my access to the children’s school, cause the closure of my school online account, and send misleading and accusatory emails, which she shared with the school. She also reduced my parenting time from three days per week to once per week, then stopped it entirely, manipulating parenting time in an unethical and illegal manner. (Attached Tab 8, 9, and 20).
13. The applicant changed our children's schools four times within two years without my consent. Part of their
12. On February 16, 2024, Justice Tobin ordered that "All interim orders made in this case are now at an end.
These orders were related to jurisdictional matters, not parenting issues. However, the applicant misused and exploited this order to block my access to the children’s school, cause the closure of my school online account, and send misleading and accusatory emails, which she shared with the school. She also reduced my parenting time from three days per week to once per week, then stopped it entirely, manipulating parenting time in an unethical and illegal manner. (Attached Tab 8, 9, and 20).
13. The applicant changed our children's schools four times within two years without my consent. Part of their schooling was through online learning at Creeny School (Tab 14). She refused to comply with Justice V. Mitrow’s order, did not resume the children's in-person schooling in London, Ontario, and denied parenting time (Tab 6).
School attendance and frequent, unjustified absences
14. The respondent repeatedly requested to enroll the children in a private, in-person bilingual (Arabic/English) school. In 2024, the applicant finally agreed but demanded an upfront payment of CAD $26,160 from the father via Western Union. She anticipated that he would refuse, aiming to keep the children in online schooling to maintain full control over them. (Tab 20)
15. Now, my children are attending an in-person bilingual school, and I, the respondent, have fully covered all school-related expenses, including tuition, textbook rentals, resources, lab and supplies usage, bus transportation, and uniforms, all of which are paid in full and up to date. (Tab 12).
16. The applicant claimed that the children needed school supplies, including laptops, mobile phones, and tablets.
However, she refused to discuss the details or respond in a reasonable manner, did not allow the children to communicate with me about these items, and acted unreasonably and impolitely. She also made deliberate efforts to prevent me from ordering these supplies—and succeeded. (Tab 18).
17. The children have frequent and unjustified absences from school, and the applicant mother refuses to provide any explanation for the cause, resulting in a total of 106 attendance issues. (Tab 10).
18. The applicant mother contacted all schools to block the father’s access to the children’s educational information and made false accusations and misleading claims against him. Samples of these accusations and communications are attached. (Tab 12).
Parental Alienation and Emotional Manipulation
19. Communication between my children and me initially took place via WhatsApp video calls, then shifted to the TalkingParents application at my request.
20. However, the applicant mother began monitoring and controlling every conversation, manipulating the children and alienating them.
21. I requested to switch back to WhatsApp video calls to reduce her influence, but she refused.
22. Calls typically last less than one minute before the applicant mother mutes the audio, turns off the camera, or leaves the mobile in an empty room pointed at the ceiling.
23. The applicant unilaterally changed the court-ordered three weekly 30-minute video calls to one weekly 90- minute call without the respondent father’s approval or consent, but never allowed the full duration as calls typically lasted less than a minute; she later altered the schedule again without consent, eventually blocking all communication entirely, blocking the respondent’s number on WhatsApp, refusing calls from TalkingParents and other platforms, ignoring emails, and not responding to any texts or messages. (Attached Tab 9 and 20).
24. The applicant mother has never allowed free or private communication between me and the children, as she seeks to maintain full control over them.
25. She uses various tactics to manipulate, alienate, and influence them against me.
26. If the applicant mother falsely claims that the children do not want to communicate with their father, relatives, or siblings, it only confirms that she is an untrustworthy and unfit custodian.
27. The Kuwaiti courts have already ruled her as an unreliable custodian, not trusty, and criminal courts in Jordan and Kuwait have convicted her for actions against the children's best interests. (Tab 1)
28. The applicant mother blocks direct communication by preventing the children from making or receiving calls.
She was also ordered to provide the father with the children's social media account details, but to date, she has not complied. (Attached Tab 4 and 9).
29. The applicant interferes with conversations by monitoring, interrupting, or influencing the children’s responses, making it difficult for them to speak freely. (Videos are available)
30. In Kuwait, the applicant denied in-person visits by failing to comply with court orders for parenting time and refusing to allow the children to see their father, even when explicitly directed by the court. (Attached Tab 4 and 1).
31. The applicant mother isolates the children from their father, extended family, and siblings by blocking all efforts to maintain family relationships and refusing to allow any communication with them. (Attached Tab 9).
32. The applicant mother creating Administrative Barriers – She blocks access to school information and has caused the closure of the respondent father's online school account, making it harder to stay involved in the children’s education.
33. Emotionally Influencing the Children – She engages in parental alienation by influencing the children against their father, making them fearful or hesitant to engage in parenting time.
34. These actions demonstrate a consistent pattern of non-compliance with court orders and a deliberate effort to sever the father’s relationship with his children. (Relevant evidence is attached in various Tabs).
35. The applicant has a pattern of accusing and threatening anyone who does not comply with her unreasonable views, including her own family, parents, the Jordanian legal system, the respondent and his family, the Kuwaiti legal system, the Canadian system, Justice Sah, Justice Howard, other justices, court staff, Ms. Soffa, the OCL, Amicus, and various other individuals. (Attached Tab 13, Tab 16, and the links below).
36. The applicant mother has not allowed the father to see his daughter, Lujain’s face, since abducting her to Canada. During all calls, she ensures that Lujain’s face remains covered.
37. The applicant mother consistently uses various tactics to pretend and act deceptively, as she has confirmed in her communications with the respondent father. She stated clearly “I knew your plans from the beginning, but acted before the people to let them think that I am a crazy woman or acting....”
38. The applicant continues to use public media to manipulate narratives, making false accusations and sharing court documents without authorization. She exploits the children’s images for sympathy, attracts followers, and collects money under false pretenses https://www.change.org/p/seeking-justice-freedom-appoint-justicesharon-hassan-on-my-file-stop-discrimination/u/33017218 and https://www.gofundme.com/f/protect-kidsfrom-losing-mother-by-deportation
Mediation and reconciliation:
39. The applicant mother refused to participate in any reconciliation or mediation as ordered by Justice Tobin and failed to comply with his July 31, 2023 order to engage the services of Paula, a relationship counselor.
40. She responded to the mediation center with unacceptable accusations and claims and exhibited the same behavior with her former lawyer in Kuwait and during negotiations in Canada.
41. Despite initially engaging, she suddenly refused to continue and stopped responding to calls from the OCL, Amicus, me, and my former lawyer.
42. It appears she deliberately creates and thrives on such dramatic conflicts. (Attached Tab 15, Tab 4, Tab 5, above links).
Children’s Psychology Impact Assessment
43. This court must consider the fact that the applicant has been planning and orchestrating these unacceptable behaviors and actions for a long time, with her plan beginning execution in 2018.
44. The children are victims of her control and manipulation, unable to express themselves freely due to her continued alienation efforts.
45. They have been under her abduction and control since 2020.
46. I make this affidavit in support of my motion and for no improper purpose.
Put a line through any blank space on this page.
Sworn/Affirmed before me at:
Toronto
(municipality)
In Province of Ontario
(province, state or country)
On Signature
(This form to be signed in front of a lawyer,
justice of the peace, notary public or commissioner
for taking affidavits.)
(date)
Commissioner for taking affidavits
(Type or print name below if signature illegible.)
SOLEMNLY Sworn and subscribed remotely by Zakaria
Zayed, stated as being in Kuwait, before me in Milton,
Ontario, on February 17, 2025, in accordance with O Reg
431/20, Administering Oath or Declaration Remotely.
****************************************************************************
FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT/MOVING PARTY,
ZAKARIA ZAYED
FOR THE SPECIAL APPOINTMENT
SUBMITTED ON JUNE 27, 2025
TO BE HEARD JULY 11, 2025
PART 1: IDENTIFICATION
1. The Respondent, Zakaria Zayed (“Zakaria”), born October 15, 1979, is the father of the three children – Baraa Zayed (“Baraa”), born October 21, 2010; Lujain Zayed (“Lujain”), born November 6, 2012; and Miriam Zayed (“Miriam”), born October 11, 2018. The Applicant, Lubna Aldahleh (“Lubna”), born May 5, 1984 is the children’s mother.
PART I: NATURE OF THE MOTION
2. This part introduces the motions brought by all parties and explains their purpose within the broader context of the family law dispute. It also addresses the Respondent’s intent to oppose the Applicant’s and OCL motions and outlines the principles guiding this factum.
3. This is the factum of the Respondent father, Mr. Zakaria Zayed, in support of the motions scheduled for special appointment on July 11, 2025.
4. he Applicant has filed motions seeking to strike the Respondent’s pleadings, restrict his parenting time, prohibit his access to the children’s information, conceal her and the children’s address, rely on the reports of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”), and simultaneously seek the removal of the OCL.
5. The OCL brought a motion to withdraw from the case while opposing the Respondent’s request to remove their evidences.
PART II: FACTS
6. This section presents the factual background of the case, including the history of the parties’ litigation, key court orders, and the procedural conduct of both parties. It provides the context necessary to understand the Respondent’s motions and the Applicant’s pattern of obstruction and non-compliance.
7. The parties are the parents of three children: Baraa (age 14), Lujain (age 12), and Mariam (age 6). The children currently reside with the Applicant in London, Ontario. The Respondent resides in Kuwait.
8. This case involves a long history of litigation in Kuwait, Jordan, and Ontario. The Applicant mother removed the children from their habitual residence in Kuwait in July 2021, without the Respondent father’s consent or a court order, and has concealed her address in Canada. Multiple court orders in Kuwait and Jordan granted the Respondent custody, decision-making responsibility, and guardianship. These orders have not been enforced in Ontario. Instead, the Ontario court has assumed jurisdiction and issued multiple interim orders, the most recent of which was made on February 16, 2024. Since the children were removed from Kuwait, the Respondent father has not received proper or meaningful parenting time.
9. Despite orders for shared communication, mediation, and compliance with OCL processes, the Applicant has repeatedly obstructed the Respondent’s involvement. This includes denying electronic contact, failing to produce children for interviews, and refusing psychological assessment…...
10. The OCL was appointed on May 26, 2023. Following their appointment, five affidavits were submitted, none of which included psychological or clinical assessments. In February and June 2025, the OCL confirmed they could not complete their mandate due to the Applicant’s obstruction and children refusal.
11. On May 12, 2025, I served a motion seeking to remove the OCL and remove its evidences. This was followed by responding affidavits and a further motion from the OCL seeking withdrawal while opposing any removing of their reports.
12. The Applicant now seeks to rely on the OCL’s findings, while objecting to s. 30 assessments or meaningful involvement from the Respondent.
13. The Respondent has acted diligently and in good faith throughout these proceedings. He has filed timely affidavits (February 17, May 12, and June 2), complied with all service requirements, and consistently proposed reasonable solutions to address issues of parenting time, decision-making responsibility, communication access, psychological assessments, and access to information concerning the children. All attempts at mediation and settlement have been refused by the Applicant without any reasonable justification.
PART III: ISSUES
This section outlines the five legal questions the Court must determine in light of the motions presented. Each issue aligns with one of the five motions. The resolution of these issues is crucial to restoring fairness and protecting the children’s best interests.
14. The following legal issues arise:
a) Should the Applicant be held in contempt for violating court orders?
b) Should the Respondent be granted decision-making-responsibility, parenting time and meaningful communication rights?
c) Is a psychological assessment under s. 30 CLRA necessary?
d) Should the OCL be removed and their materials sealed or excluded?
e) Should the Applicant’s procedural motions to strike and restrict access be dismissed?
PART IV: LAW AND ARGUMENT
15. This section presents the Respondent’s legal arguments and evidence in support of the motions before the Court. Each subsection addresses a specific motion and the associated legal issues. The Respondent respectfully asks the Court to consider these matters in the best interests of the children, the need for procedural fairness, and the preservation of judicial integrity.
A. Sealing and Anonymity Order to Protect Children’s Privacy
16. This subsection seeks a sealing and anonymity order to protect the identity and privacy of the children and parties. It outlines the legal tests and precedents supporting such requests and explains the potential harm from public access to sensitive family law materials.
17. The Respondent respectfully requests that this Court grant an order sealing the file and anonymizing the names of the parties and children to protect the children’s privacy and emotional well-being.
18. Section 133 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 14(6)(e) of the Family Law Rules give the Court authority to restrict public access where necessary to protect the interests of vulnerable persons. The Court’s discretion to issue sealing or anonymity orders is guided by a balancing of harm against the public’s interest in open justice.
19. In A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., 2012 SCC 46, the Supreme Court held that children’s privacy and emotional security warrant enhanced protection in legal proceedings. A child’s vulnerability is a critical factor, and anonymity orders can be granted to prevent further psychological harm. See: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc46/2012scc46.html?resultId=126a918bb5a14cadb09184183b247815&searchId=2025-06-27T19:47:06:936/7e8c964d7839489f8e1558c76456c98f&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAuQS5CLiB2LiBCcmFnZyBDb21tdW5pY2F0aW9ucyBJbmMuLCAyMDEyIFNDQyA0NgAAAAAB#:~:text=%5B14%5D,at%20p.%20302
20. Similarly, in Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 SCR 835, the Court ruled that restrictions on public access must be justified where they serve to protect parties from serious harm and do not impair the principles of fundamental justice. The children in this case are already subject to public exposure through social media campaigns initiated by the Applicant, and an order is needed to prevent ongoing reputational and emotional damage.
21. The Respondent submits that public access to affidavits, communications, OCL records, photos, and family conflict-related materials risks stigmatizing and harming the children. This request is narrowly tailored to restrict identifying details only, and still permits the publication of the Court’s legal reasoning for transparency.
B. Public Campaigns, Social Media, and Children’s Privacy
22. This subsection addresses the Applicant’s use of public platforms to share court documents, photographs of the children, and disparaging commentary. The Respondent respectfully seeks a court order to restrict such conduct in order to protect the emotional well-being and reputational safety of the children and all involved parties. This request is supported by recent court decisions addressing the misuse of social media in family law matters.
23. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s use of public platforms such as https://www.change.org/p/seeking-justice-freedom-appoint-justice-sharon-hassan-on-my-file-stop-discrimination/u/33592740 to post photographs of the children, details of court proceedings, and disparaging commentary directed at him, the court, and other professionals (including OCL staff, court staff, judges, lawyers, ….etc ) constitutes a breach of privacy and a serious risk to the children’s emotional safety.
24. In E.H. v. O.K. (unreported, cited in multiple Ontario law firm commentaries), the court prohibited a parent from sharing any information about the family court case or their children on social media and ordered the removal of all existing posts. The court recognized the risk of public exposure and reputational harm to the child.
25. In G.J.B. v. D.R.K., the court emphasized the dangers of defamatory or inflammatory communications about family litigation online, stating: “These types of communications… can and often do take on a life of their own, and the consequences can be dangerous and devastating.”
26. In Rego v. Santos, 2014 ONCJ 330, the court considered the impact of online sharing of child photos and personal information, acknowledging privacy as a relevant legal consideration.
27. Based on these precedents, the Respondent respectfully requests that the court order:
“The Applicant is forbidden from posting or sharing any information, photos, or court documents about this case/family on any social media or website. This includes direct posts from her or indirect posts made by others on her behalf.”
28. The order is necessary to protect the dignity of these proceedings and to shield the children, lawyers, and court participants from reputational and psychological harm.
C. Contempt of Court
29. This subsection addresses the Applicant’s repeated disobedience of court orders concerning communication, parenting time, access to information, child supports, reconciliation, assessment, educational access…. It sets out the legal basis for a finding of contempt under Rule 31 of the Family Law Rules and highlights how the Applicant’s conduct mirrors that condemned in similar Ontario court decisions.
30. In addition to the violations outlined above, the Respondent has been the sole party responsible for paying the children's school tuition, despite the Applicant’s refusal to cooperate with or contribute to these expenses. The Applicant has further interfered by instructing the school to deny the Respondent access to the children's academic and administrative information, even though he is their legal parent and actively supporting their education. She has also changed the children’s school multiple times without notice or consultation, leaving the Respondent unaware of key details about their education. The Respondent continues to follow up with the Applicant regarding the children's 2025–2026 school year plans, but she has failed to respond.
31. The Respondent has also made efforts to send online gifts, items, orders, financial support, and messages of encouragement to the children—efforts which the Applicant has rejected or ignored.
32. This pattern of obstruction mirrors conduct that Ontario courts have found to be contemptuous and contrary to the children’s best interests. In Skura v. Fibingr (2014, ON SCJ), the mother was found in contempt for unilaterally transferring a child to another school without the father's consent, highlighting that such educational decisions must be made cooperatively. See discussion at: https://www.lawtimesnews.com/case-law/ontario-civil-decisions/by-unilaterally-transferring-schools-without-consent-of-father-mother-willfully-breached-order/264633 , the mother was found in contempt for unilaterally transferring a child to another school without the father's consent, highlighting that such educational decisions must be made cooperatively.
33. The Respondent seeks a finding that the Applicant is in contempt of court for her continued disobedience of valid and enforceable court orders, including but not limited to: denial of communication with the children; failure to provide health, education, and welfare updates; and interference with court-ordered
D. OCL interviews and assessments.
· Rule 31 of the Family Law Rules permits a party to bring a contempt motion where another party has failed to obey a court order. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court must be satisfied that: An order existed, The terms of the order were clear and unambiguous, and The party disobeyed the order knowingly.
34. In Godard v. Godard, 2015 ONCA 568 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal affirmed that a parent's persistent failure to comply with access orders can amount to contempt. paragraphs 26–33. https://lukesplace.ca/recent-case-encouraging-children-to-have-access-time-with-the-other-parent/#:~:text=Godard%20v%20Godard%202015%20ONCA%20568%20tackles%20the,were%20two%20children%2C%20one%20living%20with%20each%20parent
35. Canadian courts have held that when a parent actively discourages or prevents children from spending time or communicating with the other parent—particularly when there is a court order—this can be considered contempt and parental alienation. Courts have found alienation in multiple cases and often respond by modifying custody arrangements to protect the children. See:
• L.Z. v. J.C., 2014 ONSC 1956,
• C.K. v. J.M., 2021 ONSC 5143,
• Godard v. Godard, 2015 ONCA 568,
36. In M.A.L. v. K.A.W., 2013 ONSC 6665, the court found clear contempt where a parent had flagrantly and repeatedly ignored access orders, reinforcing that contempt findings are necessary to uphold the court's authority.
37. In Ruffolo v. David, 2019 ONSC 3853, the court emphasized that repeated interference with access justifies a contempt finding and necessitates intervention to preserve the parent–child relationship.
38. In Dennie v. Dennie, 2016 ONSC 491, the court held that a parent’s consistent denial of parenting time and failure to follow court orders constituted contempt and required the court’s intervention.
39. Here, the Applicant has failed to comply with orders issued on October 24, 2023,….. and February 16, 2024. Her repeated denial of communication and access constitutes deliberate and knowing disobedience.
E. Parenting Time and Communication Rights
40. This subsection outlines the Respondent’s request for defined parenting time and electronic communication with his children. It argues that the Applicant’s obstruction of access violates the best interests of the children and draws on case law emphasizing the child’s right to a relationship with both parents.
41. The Respondent's financial support for the children’s tuition—without contribution from the Applicant—demonstrates his commitment to their academic well-being. Despite his proactive involvement, including communications with the school about registration and tuition, the Applicant has continued to obstruct his access to school information. She has changed the children's schools without notice, refused to answer questions about the upcoming 2025–2026 school year, and actively excluded the Respondent from decisions and updates.
42. She has also rejected or ignored his online orders, messages, and offers of financial or material support for the children. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that shared decision-making, particularly around education and well-being, is a fundamental element of responsible parenting. The Applicant’s ongoing refusal to engage in collaborative decisions and her efforts to isolate the Respondent undermine the cooperative spirit expected in Ontario family law.
43. Section 16 of the Divorce Act and s. 28(1)(b) of the Children’s Law Reform Act provide that parenting orders must be made in accordance with the best interests of the child.
44. In Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA), the Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized that a child is entitled to a meaningful relationship with both parents. The Court further noted that judicial intervention is warranted when that relationship is being undermined or frustrated.
45. The Respondent has been denied parenting time and meaningful communication, despite valid orders and repeated efforts to comply. The Applicant’s obstruction is inconsistent with the best interests of the children.
16. In Perron v. Perron, 2012 ONSC 5866 (CanLII), the court stated that unilateral denial of parenting time requires court intervention.
F. Section 30 Psychological Assessment
46. This subsection argues for a court-ordered psychological assessment under section 30 of the CLRA due to the high-conflict nature of the case, parental alienation, and the need for a professional evaluation of the children’s best interests. It explains why the OCL’s involvement was insufficient and why independent clinical assessment is necessary.
47. Section 30 of the CLRA allows the court to order a professional assessment of the needs of the child and the ability of each person to meet those needs.
48. In Serrano v. Serrano, 2014 ONSC 503 (CanLII), the court held that a s. 30 assessment is especially appropriate in high-conflict cases where the children’s views and parenting capacity must be assessed independently.
49. The Applicant has blocked prior assessment efforts, including OCL interviews and proposed clinical consultations. A court-ordered s. 30 assessment is now the only viable option to ensure an impartial, comprehensive review.
50. Canadian courts have also cautioned that children’s stated preferences may be unreliable when shaped by one parent. In Seaton v. Zheng, 2019 ONSC (unreported, referenced in academic materials), the court refused to rely on children’s expressed views due to strong evidence of parental alienation. The court rejected a Voice of the Child report for two teenagers, noting that one parent's influence had compromised their independent judgment.
51. A review of over 50 Ontario judgments involving parental alienation shows that courts often respond to such findings by adjusting custody arrangements and minimizing reliance on the influenced child’s preferences. See: https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2016CanLIIDocs4594
52. Moreover, empirical studies support judicial caution when relying on children’s views in the presence of prolonged separation or full parental control. A peer-reviewed article found that 42% of family law judges believe children’s preferences can be shaped by a parent. See: https://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/45-3/45arizlrev629.pdf
53. In the present case, where the Respondent has been denied access and the children have had no meaningful contact with him in over 5 year, any reliance on their stated preferences—absent a neutral psychological assessment—would be procedurally unsafe and substantively unjust. A full section 30 assessment is necessary to uncover the true needs and voices of the children.
G. Removal of OCL and Exclusion of Reports
54. This subsection supports the motion to remove the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and exclude all OCL-related evidence. It presents legal grounds for removal based on procedural unfairness and compromised neutrality, referencing relevant Ontario case law where similar action was taken.
55. The OCL has filed affidavits dated July 20, 2023, November 13, 2023, January 14, 2025, February 20, 2025, and June 20, 2025. The latest affidavits confirm that the OCL was unable to complete interviews or assessments due to the Applicant’s refusal to cooperate. The OCL was obstructed from accessing the children, and the assessment process was compromised from the outset.
56. The Respondent respectfully submits that the OCL exceeded its mandate, failed to meet its statutory obligations under section 89 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 4 of the Family Law Rules, and demonstrated a biased and incomplete process. The OCL failed to engage with neutral clinical professionals, such as Ms. Paula DeVeto, despite the Respondent’s formal requests. The OCL also accepted and relied on the Applicant's narrative while refusing or ignoring countervailing evidence provided through the Respondent’s sworn affidavits and exhibits.
57. In Children’s Lawyer for Ontario v. R.G., 2019 ONCJ 320, the Ontario Court of Justice found that incomplete or procedurally unfair reports submitted by the OCL may be excluded where their inclusion would prejudice the fairness of the proceedings. Although a direct CanLII link is unavailable for public access, the ruling is referenced in Ontario legal commentary for its affirmation that where the OCL is obstructed or fails to meet its duties under the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rules, their materials may be excluded from the evidentiary record. The Respondent submits that similar circumstances apply here.
58. The OCL’s continued participation in this matter has become procedurally damaging, has produced no reliable findings, and has been manipulated by the Applicant’s ongoing obstruction.
59. The Respondent asks that the OCL’s participation be formally removed and that all OCL affidavits, notes, reports, and related materials be excluded from the evidentiary record in these proceedings.
H. Opposition to Applicant’s Procedural Motions
60. This subsection challenges the Applicant’s motions to strike pleadings and exclude the Respondent. It asserts that the motions are procedurally abusive and inconsistent with the Applicant’s simultaneous reliance on OCL materials. Case law is cited to demonstrate the improper use of procedural tools to disadvantage the opposing party.
61. The Applicant’s motions include broad and unrealistic demands, such as striking the Respondent’s pleadings and affidavits while simultaneously requesting full decision-making and relying on OCL evidence—even as she seeks the OCL's removal. These conflicting positions suggest a tactical attempt to control the narrative by suppressing opposing viewpoints while preserving selectively favorable material.
62. In F.K. v. E.A., 2015 ONSC 5528, the court rejected attempts by one party to engineer a strategic advantage by removing third-party assessors while still seeking to rely on their findings. The Court emphasized that such conduct undermines procedural fairness and risks distorting the truth-seeking function of the court.
63. The Applicant’s conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to cooperate with neutral processes while using litigation mechanisms to exclude, silence, and punish the Respondent. Such misuse of court process is contrary to the objectives of the Family Law Rules and serves only to increase litigation, not resolve it.
64. The Respondent respectfully submits that the Applicant’s strategy is not based on the best interests of the children or principled legal argument. Rather, it appears engineered to limit scrutiny of her conduct while expanding her legal control. Her motions must be dismissed as it is unreasonable and procedurally abusive.
65. The Applicant seeks to strike the Respondent’s pleadings under Rules 1(8) and 2.1, arguing delay and abuse. However, the Respondent has met filing deadlines, provided complete materials, and participated in good faith.
66. In Pillay v. Pillay, 2021 ONSC 5944 (CanLII), the court cautioned against striking pleadings by self-represented parties where procedural complexity and good-faith engagement exist.
67. The Respondent asks that all of the Applicant’s motions to strike or exclude be dismissed in full.
PART V: ORDER REQUESTED
68. This section summarizes the specific remedies sought by the Respondent as part of the motions. These include findings of contempt, parenting time, psychological assessment, removal of the OCL, and removing/sealing their evidences to protect the children’s welfare and the fairness of these proceedings.
69. The Respondent respectfully requests that this Honourable Court grant the following relief, in light of the evidence, legal authorities, and child-focused concerns presented above:
1) An order finding the Applicant in contempt of court for non-compliance with parenting communication, and information-sharing orders;
2) An order granting the Respondent regular, direct, and meaningful electronic parenting time with the children in accordance with a defined schedule; shared decision-making responsibility; and full access to the children's contact information and social media accounts.
3) An order for a full Section 30 assessment pursuant to the Children’s Law Reform Act, to be conducted by a neutral and independent psychologist, with participation from both parents and all three children;
4) An order removing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer from this matter and excluding all materials filed by the OCL, including affidavits, notes, reports, and recommendations, from the evidentiary record;
5) An order dismissing all outstanding motions filed by the Applicant, including her motion to strike pleadings and to restrict the Respondent’s participation;
6) An order sealing the court file in this matter from public access, and anonymizing the names of the parties and children in all future publicly available court decisions, using initials or generic identifiers (e.g., “A.B. v. C.D.”), to protect the privacy of the children under Rule 14(6)(e) and s. 133 of the Courts of Justice Act, in accordance with the principles established in A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., 2012 SCC 46 and Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 SCR 835;
7) The Applicant is hereby prohibited from posting, publishing, or sharing—directly or indirectly—any information, photographs, videos, or court documents relating to this case or the parties involved (including the children, the Respondent, counsel, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and any court personnel) on any public platform, including but not limited to social media, websites, blogs, or online petitions. This prohibition applies equally to posts made personally by the Applicant or by third parties acting on her behalf or under her direction;
8) An order granting the Respondent 100% physical parenting time with the children during any visit to Canada lasting 14 days or less; and for visits exceeding 14 consecutive days, an order granting the Respondent a 50/50 shared parenting time schedule for the duration of his stay in Canada, to follow an alternating weekly structure beginning with the Respondent (e.g., first week with the Respondent, second week with the Applicant, third week with the Respondent, and so on), with transitions arranged in a child-focused and respectful manner.
9) Costs of these motions, and any other relief this Honourable Court deems just.
PART VI: AUTHORITIES
• Skura v. Fibingr, 2014 ONSC (cited in lawtimesnews.com), regarding contempt for unilateral school changes
Schedule “A” – Statutes and Rules
• Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, ss. 28, 30 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c12
• Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 16 (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/D-3.4/page-1.html
• Family Law Rules, O. Reg.114/99, Rules 1(8), 2.1, 14, 31 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/990114
• Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 133 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c43
Schedule “B” – Case Law
• Skura v. Fibingr, 2014 ONSC, https://www.lawtimesnews.com/case-law/ontario-civil-decisions/by-unilaterally-transferring-schools-without-consent-of-father-mother-willfully-breached-order/264633
• L.Z. v. J.C., 2014 ONSC 1956,
• C.K. v. J.M., 2021 ONSC 5143,
• M.A.L. v. K.A.W., 2013 ONSC 6665,
• Ruffolo v. David, 2019 ONSC 3853,
• Dennie v. Dennie, 2016 ONSC 491,
• A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., 2012 SCC 46,
• G.J.B. v. D.R.K., [citation to be added]
• Rego v. Santos, 2014 ONCJ 330,
• Children’s Lawyer for Ontario v. R.G., 2019 ONCJ 320 (https://canlii.ca/t/j0c8v
• Seaton v. Zheng, 2019 ONSC, [citation in academic reference]
• F.K. v. E.A., 2015 ONSC 5528,
• Pillay v. Pillay, 2021 ONSC 5944 (https://canlii.ca/t/jj4zj
• F.K. v. E.A., 2015 ONSC 5528,
• Godard v. Godard, 2015 ONCA 568 (
• Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA)
• Perron v. Perron, 2012 ONSC 5866
• Serrano v. Serrano, 2014 ONSC 503
• Children’s Lawyer for Ontario v. R.G., 2019 ONCJ 320
• Pillay v. Pillay, 2021 ONSC 5944
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 27th DAY OF JUNE, 2025:
__________________________________
The Respondent, Zakaria Zayed